Former Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) points out in a recent op-ed that Obama would have been better off consulting Congress before making grand promises. Another treaty with Russia would require further nuclear reductions, and Obama’s going forward with this policy unilaterally is premature.

Obama’s nuclear policy poorly assumes that other state actors, especially Russia, share or would share the desire for further nuclear weapon reductions if the U.S. takes the lead. Peter Brookes, Heritage’s senior fellow for national security affairs, points out that “so far Putin has given the idea of further nixing nukes the cold shoulder, no doubt in response to long-standing disagreements over U.S. missile defenses and more recently over efforts to oust Bashar Assad from Syria.”

Furthermore, Brookes asks, “why would Russia agree to further cuts in its nuclear arsenal since it’s involved in a major modernization program that’s allowing it to grow—yes, grow—its nuclear forces to U.S. levels under New START?”

Obama’s proposed policy appears wholly ignorant of what is driving the nuclear programs of other countries, especially those that are cause for concern. Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons for legitimacy reasons, while China and Russia seek international influence through their modernization and development programs. If anything, these are incentives to increase and modernize U.S. nuclear weapons, not get rid of them.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times? Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Email address

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do. Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.